The Supreme Court of India has expressed extreme disappointment over the manner in which bail applications are being handled by High Courts, specifically noting instances where matters pertaining to the liberty of individuals are adjourned for months.
Hearing a Special Leave Petition highlighting a “court-wide pattern of repeated adjournments” at the Punjab & Haryana High Court, a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi issued a slew of directions to ensure time-bound adjudication of bail matters.
The Court has directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to furnish complete details of pending anticipatory bail, regular bail, and suspension of sentence applications within four weeks.
Background of the Case
The matter, titled Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana, arose from a petition filed by an accused arrested on August 11, 2025, in connection with FIR No. 173 registered at Police Station Sector-17, Faridabad. The charges included offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the Arms Act, and the Motor Vehicles Act.
The petitioner initially approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana for regular bail. On December 8, 2025, the High Court adjourned the hearing to February 20, 2026—a gap of more than two months. The petitioner subsequently applied for the preponement of the hearing, but the High Court declined the request vide an order dated December 22, 2025, on the ground that the bail application of a co-accused had already been dismissed. Aggrieved by this delay, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before the Court
Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the delay in his client’s case was not an isolated incident. He argued that “numerous bail applications are pending before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, where the next dates of hearing are being scheduled months later.”
To substantiate this claim, the counsel presented a chart of bail applications pending since May 2025, which had been adjourned to dates in March 2026. The petitioner also produced relevant Records of Proceedings to demonstrate a “court-wide pattern of repeated adjournments.”
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The Supreme Court took a serious view of the long adjournments, observing that while High Courts bear the burden of heavy dockets, priority must be given to matters of personal liberty.
“All that we wish to observe at this stage is that we are extremely disappointed to see the manner in which prayers pertaining to the liberty of individuals are being dealt with… among the miscellaneous matters, nothing can be more important than deciding the fate of an application for bail.”
The Bench further remarked on similar issues in other jurisdictions, stating:
“It is equally disturbing to know that in the Patna High Court, bail applications are not listed even for a preliminary hearing for months at a stretch.”
The Court noted that despite regular indications from the Supreme Court regarding timelines for adjudicating urgent matters, the desired sensitivity has not been achieved.
“It seems that the orders passed by this Court have not been able to bring about the desired sensitivity, due to which, the High Courts have seemingly not evolved any robust mechanism for time-bound adjudication of bail matters.”
While acknowledging that the listing of matters is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the respective High Court as the “master of the roster,” the Supreme Court asserted its duty to intervene when citizens languish in jail without a hearing.
Directions Issued
To address the systemic issue, the Supreme Court issued the following mandatory guidelines:
- Data Collection: The Registrar Generals of all High Courts are directed to send complete details of pending applications for anticipatory bail, regular bail, and suspension of sentence. This includes the date of filing and the next date of hearing.
- Details must be furnished for all applications filed on or after January 1, 2025.
- If applications filed prior to this date are still pending, their details must also be furnished.
- This information is to be submitted within four weeks.
- State Cooperation: All State Governments are directed to fully cooperate with High Courts.
- States must be ready with relevant information when bail applications are listed, provided a copy is submitted to the Advocate General/Public Prosecutor at least three days in advance.
- Investigating Officers or authorized officers are permitted to appear online in such matters.
- Circulation of Order: The Registrar Generals of High Courts are directed to circulate this order among the Hon’ble Judges of their High Courts with a “fervent appeal to them to expeditiously dispose of the pending bail applications.”
- Roster Revision: The Hon’ble Chief Justices of High Courts are requested to revisit their roster and listing arrangements.
“Wherever they find that there is a mismatch between the total pendency and the Bench allocated for deciding such matters, they may expand the roster for listing of the bail matters.”
Decision on the Petitioner’s Case
Regarding the specific case of Sunny Chauhan, the Supreme Court noted that the bail application is scheduled for February 20, 2026. The Court requested the High Court Judge to decide the matter on merits either on the fixed date or prior to it, provided the petitioner seeks preponement.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on March 23, 2026, to review the data submitted by the High Courts.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sunny Chauhan v. State of Haryana
- Case No: Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1613/2026
- Coram: Chief Justice Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
- Counsel for Petitioner: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Sr. Adv., Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Rahul Gautam, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv., Mr. Navneet S. Attri, Adv., Mr. Kumar Murlidhar, AOR
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Deepak Thukral, Addl. AG, Mr. Himanshu Satija, AOR
